The deadly game of global chess being played out by the power elites of nations has but one consequence: the death of innocent civilians.

Exploration of the causes/issues that manifest into conflict over the centuries be it regional, national or international; more often than not are the contrivance of pro- or anti– factions to an ideology premised on theocracy, democracy or autocracy and variant machinations thereof.

However, more significant are they whom, above the fray, are the ultimate and true authors, purveyors to these conflicts who recognize and utilize the variants in ideology to their optimum benefit; be the motivation to attain supreme power of control of the mechanistic aspects of global social order or more fundamentally, control of global currency.

Recognizing that every system is inherently defined by a hierarchical structure, often represented as a pyramid; it is inevitable that within the matrix of the grand pyramid structure, comprised of a multitude of sub-system, pyramidal structures, each representing an element of power in its own right becomes source to potential conflict.

Essentially on examination of the quagmire that is the conflict in the Middle East, this is exactly what is transpiring.

Representing the ideology of democracy, grand pyramidal structure in the Middle East conflict is the United States under the auspicious of a Coalition of Nations (though this grouping can be confidently deemed but a sub-system structure to yet a higher order of power often alluded to as the Power Elite or Ghost Global Governance; reputed authors to the New World Order).

Representing the ideology of theocracy, grand pyramidal structure in the Middle East conflict is presumed to be Islamic Muslims however, in reality, it essentially is non-existent. This conclusion is in recognition of Islam not being a monolithic (religious) organization but rather, is comprised of eight recognized sects within the Middle East, namely: (Source: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/muslims-adhere-to-different-islamic-sects.html)

Sunni Muslims include 84%–90% of all Muslims. Sunni means “tradition,” and Sunnis regard themselves as those who emphasize following the traditions of Muhammad and of the first two generations of the community of Muslims that followed Muhammad.

A number of movements to reform Islam have originated mainly in the 20th century. Some are limited to one country and others have a broader influence. Most are Sunni movements, such as the Wahhabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jama`at-i-Islami.

Shi`ite Muslims comprise 10%–16% of all Muslims. Shi`ites are the “party of `Ali,” who believe that Muhammad’s son-in-law `Ali was his designated successor (imam) and that the Muslim community should be headed by a designated descendent of Muhammad. Three main subgroups of Shi`ites are Twelvers (Ithna-`Asharis), Seveners (Isma`ilis), and Fivers (Zaydis).

Sufis are Islamic mystics. Sufis go beyond external requirements of the religion to seek a personal experience of God through forms of meditation and spiritual growth. A number of Sufi orders, comparable to Christian monastic orders, exist. Most Sufis are also Sunni Muslims, although some are Shi`ite Muslims. Many conservative Sunni Muslims regard Sufism as a corruption of Islam, although most still regard Sufis as Muslims.

Baha’is and Ahmadiyyas are 19th-century offshoots of Shi`ite and Sunni Islam, respectively. Bahai’s consider themselves the newest of the major world’s religions but recognize that historically they originated from Shi`ite Islam in the same way that Christianity originated from Judaism. Ahmadiyyas do regard themselves as Muslims. Most other Muslims, however, deny that either group is a legitimate form of Islam and regard members of both groups as heretics — people who have corrupted and abandoned Islamic belief and practice.

Druze, Alevis, and `Alawis are small, sectarian groups with unorthodox beliefs and practices that split off from Islam. Druze and Alevis do not regard themselves as Muslims and are not considered Muslims by other Muslims. `Alawis have various non-Islamic practices, but debate continues as to whether they should still be considered Muslims.

Then, there is Wahabi & Salafi religions of the Arab States and ultimately, this Sect has four names SALAFI, WAHABI, NAJDI and AHL-HADITH – although today they prefer to call themselves Salafi. (Source: http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/wahabi-salafi.php).

Adding to the fray and confusion are the presence of Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims and variant fundamentalist orthodoxies within each identifiable sect.

This fragmentation of theological ideology is but one, if not easiest to identify components to the complexity being encountered by the purveyors and pursuers of democratic ideology into the Middle East region.

Historically and currently, human societal order of the Middle East is premised on the concept of Tribalism; each tribe having a designated leader who in-turn, participates in a regional council of tribal leaders. For a fuller explanation of the subject refer to `The Middle East’s Tribal DNA’ (http://www.meforum.org/1813/the-middle-easts-tribal-dna).

Given the nature of societal order within the Middle East being so divergent from that of democratically idealized Western culture nations, renders it an intellectually impossible concept to phantom western-style democracy ever taking root. It is conceivable that a form of parliamentary governance for day-to-day management of such things as public works, tax collection, health-care and other generalized societal organs however, this would likely always be subordinate to the individual Tribal Councils from each province comprising the nation as a whole.

In conclusion; bearing in mind the original, stated premise `every system is inherently defined by a hierarchical structure, often represented as a pyramid; …the grand pyramid structure…’; what is attempted here to clarify; the divergent differences of the two principle facets (factions) to the Middle East conflict, namely; the democratic ideology: an organized grand pyramidal structure versus; theological ideology not nor likely to every be an equivalent structure; the satisfactory outcome will likely be forever indeterminate. And, until this is recognized by those at the top of the grand of grand pyramids pursuing and ensuing these battles, they will conceivably be without end with only one major consequence: the death of innocent civilians.

“Immersed in the history treading madness that is this earthly existence, questioning the irrational rationality that yields no qualitative answer evokes emotions beyond description; fomenting a resolve toward disengagement of intellectual processes’ attempt to decipher reason toward objective definition of humanity’s purpose of being within the context of principles of synergistic, symbiotic relevance speculated to be the orchestrated product of a divine, omnipresent ethereal entity; an arguably acceptable theory that is proving to be failing”